Jordan Peterson Claims He’s No Conservative

With all due respect, the now-famous academic's self-assessment is not very persuasive.

Jordan Peterson recently found himself in august company. Matt Lewis of the Daily Beastwrote a piece comparing him to William F. Buckley, declaring that “not since Buckley has the right boasted so much [intellectual] firepower.” Yet Peterson, the now-world famous clinical psychologist from the University of Toronto, has described himself politically as a “classic British liberal” and has abjured any connection to modern liberalism or conservatism. He says that some of his beliefs lean left, while others place him closer to the right.

With all due respect, his self-assessment is not very persuasive. In his most recent book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, Peterson routinely provides evidence of a deep, thoughtful, yet plainly articulated conservatism. At the same time, his conservatism is in no way dogmatic; he is not a free-marketeering libertarian, for instance. Instead, Peterson’s conservatism manifests itself in his commitment to the preservation of a certain set of institutions, values, and norms without which our society could not operate. This brand of conservatism finds a compelling justification in the work of philosopher Roger Scruton, the most influential conservative intellectual in Britain.

Scruton’s conservatism derives from a love for the “actual”—that is, the astonishing array of privileges and freedoms that our ancestors passed down to us. Included in this inheritance, which we all share and from which we all benefit, are: the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the powerful over the weak; democracy, as opposed to dictatorship; economic prosperity, as opposed to deprivation; family networks and bonds of friendship, as opposed to social anomy; order as opposed to instability. For most of human history, we could not count on many of these blessings, but today they are taken for granted. In the face of our good fortune, Scruton argues, the most rational response is one of gratitude.

In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson echoes Scrutonian themes by encouraging us to feel grateful for the inheritance we have collectively received—and particularly for a society that continues to function even as individuals deal with the nearly unbelievable burdens of “Being” (like bodily disease, mental illness, deaths in the family, and economic insecurity). He writes “…people prevail and continue to do difficult and effortful tasks and to hold themselves and their families and society together. To me this is miraculous—so much so that a dumbfounded gratitude is the only appropriate response.”

Peterson, of course, is under no delusions about life’s suffering or the human capacity for cruelty, despite all the blessings we do enjoy. Pain, whether physical or emotional, can never be done away with, even in our rich and free and democratic societies. And yet people persist in spite of pain, finding new ways to endure and prosper. We continue to go about our daily lives, bearing our burdens as best we can. This perseverance, Peterson believes, should inspire us all.

Peterson (and other conservatives) do not believe that we should just feel gratitude for what we have; they think it’s our duty to understand the ideas that enabled this flourishing in the first place. In other words, one must engage with the intellectual tradition of the West, beginning with the Bible. Peterson writes: “The Bible is, for better or worse, the foundational document of Western civilization (of Western values, Western morality, and Western conceptions of good and evil).” Unlike many of his fellow academics, he does not succumb to the notion that the Western canon persists because of some conspiracy to uphold Western (or white) hegemony. Rather, these texts remain influential because they continue to shine light on humanity’s universal dilemmas.

Peterson’s respect for tradition and authority, however, is not limited to recognizing the Bible’s influence on the development of our society, or to defending the Western literary and philosophical canon. Indeed, he reveals his further traditionalist impulses when he asserts: “It is reasonable to do what other people have always done, unless we have a very good reason not to.” Conservative intellectuals have long expressed similar sentiments. In How to Be a Conservative, Roger Scruton writes that “it is always right to conserve things, when worse things are proposed in their place.” And in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Thomas Sowell rails against radicals, rebels, and revolutionaries whose motivating principle is to “Question Authority.” Sowell counters: “For authority to exist, there must have been some process by which particular people came to be regarded as more reliable guides than others. But there is no comparable process by which others come to be qualified to proclaim the dogma ‘Question Authority.’” So “by what authority,” asks Sowell, “do you tell us to question authority?”

There is a more fundamental idea underpinning the work of these conservative intellectuals: the conviction that the mechanisms and traditions of our society are rational and good, whatever their shortcomings may be. This is why the conservative mind, from Edmund Burke onwards, has stood against what Robert Conquest called the “leftist delusion of perfect equality,” as well as those who believe that by turning society on its head we can end all unnecessary suffering, eradicate all hatreds, solve all problems.

Peterson situates himself in that same anti-revolutionary tradition. “Our society,” he writes, “faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people…. This is not a good thing. Each person’s private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous…. Altering our ways of social being carelessly in the name of some ideological shibboleth…is likely to produce far more trouble than good.”

Peterson also takes up other conventionally conservative positions. He extols the virtue of personal responsibility. He enjoins us to “sort ourselves out” and not blame external circumstances for our failures. But the biggest tell that Peterson is a conservative is simply that his general disposition toward life and society is conservative. Life is difficult, Peterson allows, but there has never been a better time to live. Hard work always makes a difference. Men and women are equal, but they are not biologically identical. Boys must be allowed to mature into men. Hierarchies are not always arbitrary. Inequality does not imply injustice. There is much in our shared traditions that is worth preserving. Our culture serves certain purposes, and does so quite well.

Most people can readily agree with those ideas, but in recent times they have come under fire for being insufficiently inclusive, or reactionary, or outdated, or outright problematic. Peterson stands against such criticisms, and against those who would take a sledgehammer to society without knowing what they would lose by shattering it into a million pieces. He’s made his case passionately, but respectfully. And he has been a smashing success, attracting millions of YouTube viewers and selling out venues wherever he speaks. Conservatives are lucky to have such an articulate advocate, his rejection of their label notwithstanding.

Christian Gonzalez is originally from Venezuela, but was raised in Miami, Florida. He now studies political science at Columbia University. He can be reached at [email protected]

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 43 comments

43 Responses to Jordan Peterson Claims He’s No Conservative

You stated, ‘Included in this inheritance, which we all share and from which we all benefit, are: the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the powerful over the weak; democracy, as opposed to dictatorship; economic prosperity, as opposed to deprivation…’

This is pretty funny and typical. The so called ‘rule of law’ is actually doing a pretty good job of suppressing unarmed black folks and democracy under Trump is a joke.

Not all of us ‘inherited’ all of those privileges that you’re bragging about. Some of us are still trying to get them.

I am going to copy this article on paper and give it to about 12 people I know. This is one of the best, most succinct, most level summaries of what conservatism is about. At the beginning, I wanted to object that among those who describe themselves as sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal would be many orthodox Catholics. Maybe when we say conservative maybe a different word might be moderately traditional. But there are many paragraphs here that sum up very important ideas in crystalline ways. Thanks.

This is technically correct, Jordan Peterson is a classic conservative. He avoids the “conservative” label because in the public eye conservatism is defined by Trump and the Republican Congress. They are conservative in the same way that Joel Osteen is Christian — label only. Classic conservatives, such as those on this blog are voices crying in the wilderness, and could not be elected dog catcher.
I find it interesting that a large portion of the commenters here is liberals such as myself. While I vehemently disagree on many issues, I feel it is important that we liberals have a credible thoughtful opposition.

One of the common criticisms about Peterson in general is that his “conservatism” is actually a fairly standard set of moral truisms/platitudes, more focused on the process of individual psychological maturation than on expressing political ideology. Many of his observations are universally applicable to any decent, upright, successful individual, regardless of politics. But besides this mainstream and placid conservatism–basically just: how to be an adult–Peterson makes some radical and distinctly unconservative points, for instance, the idea of being right in the middle of chaos and order, the acceptance and embracing of the full yin and yang, which is why he keeps talking about the Jungian dark side. Notice that he does it with equal passion to any of his other lines of thought. Sure, he’s conservative in many ways, but you can’t just slide over his constant exhortations about confronting the unknown. Ultimately, that’s why he’s a useful guide but only to a point, because his guidance does reflect the truth, which is, you must be your own guide. The Buddha says that and he proposed the Middle Way, so if I had to sum up Peterson’s message, that’s what I would say, take the middle way, and good luck figuring out what that looks like in practice, but if you want a clue, it feels like being right at the edge of chaos and order.

I do not care what he calls himself or what we choose to label him as I enjoy Peterson’s work. One disagreement with the article in regards to questioning authority. I read it as it we should not unnecessarily question traditional values versus authority. Questioning the Iraq war as an example, was a perfectly conservative thing to do, regardless of the “authority” that promoted it, regardless if the questioning came from the left or the right. Authority is not the same thing as tradition or the values our country is based upon. There is room for measured dissent regardless of who holds the levels of power.

I think it is a good thing to view oneself as not a conservative or a liberal, even if one’s beliefs fall mostly one side or the other. Once you declare yourself a member either of those tribes, your allegiance start to pull and sort your beliefs. You know, if you oppose abortion you supposed to support gun rights. If you support abortion rights, you have to support illegal immigrants too. There is a price of that membership. So perhaps Jordan Peterson just want to be able to say what he thinks is right but doesn’t want your membership. Perhaps he has some positions that are not “conservative”.
Or he realizes that “conservatives ” are not really conservative, they are radicals and Peterson is an anti-revolutionary. Who knows…

Conservatives stand for stability – an admirable trait. But in doing so they tend to falsify the past. Was it not right to question Authority about Vietnam, when they found out the government was lying? And has Authority not be found to lie its bottom off, from Nixon, LBJ, to Nicaragua, Iran-Contra and Iraq. It is indeed the mark of a naive fool not to question Authority, after reality has knocked you over the head with repeated examples of lies.

I’m not sure that there’s any kind of argument that can be made that Professor Peterson is *not* a classical (British) liberal. His responses (re: linked YouTube clip) certainly seem to be in keeping with this. At best he might be considered, in the best of a truly Canadian tradition, a “Progressive Conservative”. Beyond that I’m not so sure.

As an addendum, I don’t think it can be said that the man’s basic temperament is very conservative. He’s kind of a teen idol rebel with a tough-love message, and has a tendency to get into it rather passionately. He’s a leftist rebel originally, who–to put it in the most charitable terms possible–has grown into a purveyor of knowledge tempered by wisdom. Appreciating the fruits of his own labors has made him more appreciative of the labors of others, including the value and depth of ancient religious traditions, and wanting to preserve all this inherited as well as earned wealth makes him a conservative as well. I like Peterson, he’s well-rounded in his flaws and assets. I don’t feel like the time I’ve spent listening to his lectures and interviews has been a waste, to the contrary.

I find it funny to consider respect for authority linked to comments concerning conservatives and their embrace of the founders whose respect for authority was expressed by a war of rebellion.

That is a mighty rich ironic legacy and twist in ideology.

Dr. Sowell discovered the consequences of challenging authoity when it came time to respond to the IQ and whiteness . . .

No, a conservative’s respect for authority extends as far as he can throw the same — a healthy suspicion of governmental authority. Though not as drastic as that of the founders, “intolerable cruelties”,

I’ve been watching Professor Peterson’s lectures on YouTube for some time, and agree that he doesn’t easily fit preconceived molds. His thoughts and emotions move on a deeper and freer level, whereas labels often function to snare the mind and the spirit. I don’t see such signs, but neither do I see lazy nihilism;

In my opinion, his level of thought, combined with today’s technology, can easily function globally, not just within the Anglophone world. However, I believe that to get the “credibility ticket” to the global stage, the entire legacy of “Western Civilization” would have to be sifted on his examining table, not just the current ideologies behind the labels “Allie”, “Alt-right”, “Antifa”, “Cis”, “Conservative”, “Democrat”, “Left”, “LGTBQ”, “Liberal”, “Libertarian”, “Republican”, “Right”, “SJW”, “Trans”, etc;

I think a sound, scholarly way to begin the reappraisal of “Western Civilization”, as it actually functioned in the past and functions today, would be with the “Introduction” to “Europe” by Norman Davies:

I trust Peterson’s assessment of his political position more than Mr. Gonzalez’s. Many people who do not identify as conservatives would agree with Peterson’s basic message which endorses personal responsibility and eschewing idle whining and glib blame for one’s difficulties and shortcomings. By Gonzalez’s analysis Dr. Phil and any life coach would be designated a “conservative” regardless of their actual politics.

Serious questions:
– does a demand to overturn Roe v. Wade, an established law for close to half a century, constitute conservatism or radicalism?
– do school vouchers that aim to weaken well-established public education systems constitute conservatism or radicalism?
– union-busting?
– concealed carry everywhere?
I deliberately focus on what passes for “conservative” ideas in the US.

The author’s exact same comments of justification for Keeping Things The Way They Are have been said throughout history by those on the top as to why those on the bottom shouldn’t rebel against their lot in life and should just put up with the situation. It wasn’t very convincing then, either.

It’s in fact when the authority is the weakest that it gets paraded most loudly–witness the Divine Right of Kings tub-thumping.

If you want to remain in charge, there have to be checks and balances to keep you from abusing those underneath you. We used to have the concept of noblesse oblige–which basically said, yes, you have much more authority–but you also have much more responsibility. We seem to have dropped that.

“Jordan Peterson recently found himself in august company. Matt Lewis of the Daily Beast wrote a piece comparing him to William F. Buckley, declaring that “not since Buckley has the right boasted so much [intellectual] firepower.” ”

I am no fan of the right, but even I wouldn’t go around insulting its intellectuals like that.

“In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson echoes Scrutonian themes by encouraging us to feel grateful for the inheritance we have collectively received—and particularly for a society that continues to function even as individuals deal with the nearly unbelievable burdens of “Being” (like bodily disease, mental illness, deaths in the family, and economic insecurity)”

Here here. This is why I was so upset at so many on both sides in the 2016 election who embraced the rhetoric that the best solution to society’s current ills was to “blow up the establishment”.

The Establishment, for all its flaws, has been hammered out through generations of hard work and compromise. Washington isn’t complex simply for the sake of complexity – but because our economy and society are complex, and what seems to be a frustrating piece of bureaucrat statism can often turn out to be a critical tool to maintaining civil and just society.

In essence, the dipoles of the 2016 election – Bernie and Donald – were sets of petulant children wanting to take a hammer to the TV because the cable service was erratic.

Yes this kind of conservatism is always very appealing. It is to be borne in mind however that many on the right are not conservative at all but what radical change to society. Likewise many on the left have conservative tendencies of this kind.

But. Many of the good things we have inherited were only gained through radical disobedient action. Civil rights for black people? Votes for women? The very existence of the United States of America? Uncontroversial now but would Mr Peterson have supported these 50 years, 100 years, 200 years ago?

I’m reading along, quite nicely, quite comfortably, saying to myself, “yes, he’s right, Peterson is a conservative” in the sense of conserving what many of us undeniably have. Then I come across this, attributed to Thomas Sowell: “For authority to exist, there must have been some process by which particular people came to be regarded as more reliable guides than others.” Is that why the Koch brothers exhibit outsized influence? It couldn’t be because they inherited great wealth. Or the Walton family? or Bill Gates, whose mother happened to have been lunching with an IBM executive when the company was looking for an operating system for its new PC? Or, a century ago, the beneficiaries of the English class system? Reliable guides, all? Was there some great upswelling of the people that put George Bush at Yale and then propelled him to the presidency and who then suffered under guidance that was somewhat less than reliable? Yes, yes, and yes there are lots of examples that fit Sowell’s story. Nevertheless, it takes an almost willful blindness to not see that power has mostly been inherited, even today, even on these golden shores. And suppose that wasn’t the case. To imagine that that there is some aristocracy of talent to which we owe our good fortune is almost enough throw me back into the willing arms of the left. You owe your warmth and comfort to the army who rose early this morning to clean your streets, carry away your sewage, keep your electricity running, build the silly machines under slave-like conditions that allow you to quote Thomas Sowell. Be grateful to those who deserve your gratitude.

“his conservatism is in no way dogmatic; he is not a free-marketeering libertarian”

The author’s pronounced inability to come up with a coherent definition of “conservative”, let alone one that could conceivably be shared by others – including Peterson – makes is very difficult to entertain the notion that he knows Peterson better than Peterson knows himself.

It has been so many decades since Conservatism” in the US had any commerce with the “conservatism” that Gonzalez wants to pin on Peterson, that it is no surprise that he claims not to be a Conservative. Not corresponding to the the right’s caricature of Liberalism does not make one a “conservative.”

I’ve noticed lots of comments concerned with the part about authority, so I think it might be useful to clarify.

Peterson, Sowell, and Scruton all qualify their defenses of authority. Peterson says we better “have a very good reason” to change the way things are done. Some have mentioned the civil rights movement– certainly providing equal rights to black Americans was an extremely good reason to overturn the system of segregation. Similarly Scruton says things are best kept the way they are when worse ideas are proposed in their place– but if better ideas are proposed, then change might be in order.

I think what they were all getting at was that authority figures should command some sort of respect (think parents, teachers, government officials) even though we know that they are flawed humans who can and do make mistakes and abuse their authority. The impulse, then, is to respect authority, rather than to never question it.

Confusions and contradictions are built into the American conservative tradition. A better way to see it: not every nation is lucky enough to have a revolution explicitly at their genesis. Sadly, institutional authority only gets you so far in a land this closely tied to treasonous uprising… I’m just saying there’s a case to be made, not trying to offend, but if you wanted to call this a country founded on a very flimsy list of grievances, acted upon by traitors and ungrateful snakes, you wouldn’t be anything but a typically raging conservative Brit of olden days.

I know, I know, this country was actually mostly made up of stout Englishmen, who rebelled justly and true to form, preserving their ancient rights AGAINST the overreach of authority, vigilantly guarded rights that represent power, power that was at great effort, cost and toil slowly, slowly clawed away from the sovereign, bit by bit over many centuries, until he/she was finally neutered into admitting that yes, hmm, maybe Parliament should have the power of the purse, hmm, maybe God has endowed the Englishmen with, hmm, rights, hmm, that I have neglected to recognize, hmm.

Peterson makes this weird leap from sound pschological advice for improving one’s life and becoming happy (e.g. “sorting yourself out”), to the unfounded conclusion that being sorted out makes for effective political leadership and philosophy, and that identity politics are a result of people not having “sorted themselves out.” However, one can think of various political leaders that were not “sorted out” and yet were very effective and influential. Politically, Peterson is incoherent and vastly overstepping his own expertise. That the author would draw a comparison to Buckley is to me, frankly baffling.

There is no question the Bible has had profound influence on the development of our society and it still resonate in some aspects today. The majority of Western values are not remotely close to what the Bible embodies. In fact, Greek mythologies are a much more authentic Western classic than The Bible, which is from the middle east. There is plenty of good reason to disregard the Bible as a classic. The fact we still treat it as a sacred text and frequently use it for moral justification and political argument is ridiculous.

Indeed, he reveals his further traditionalist impulses when he asserts: “It is reasonable to do what other people have always done, unless we have a very good reason not to.” Conservative intellectuals have long expressed similar sentiments.

That’s a pretty straightforward way to distinguish traditionalists from progressives. It’s not that progressives are motivated by a desire to “tear it all down” and take a sledgehammer to society’s institutions simply for thrill of it; instead they see a traditional way of doing things is not working out for a specific group of people, and for them that is enough of a good reason to change it.

A traditionalist looks at the progressive’s objection and says “this isn’t a sufficiently good reason to change the way that we do things; this doesn’t past muster and we should continue to carry on as before”.

In other words, progressives have a very low hurdle to jump over before deciding that society needs change its traditions and institutions; traditionalists do not universally oppose these changes, but they choose to set the hurdle much, much higher.

“I think what they were all getting at was that authority figures should command some sort of respect (think parents, teachers, government officials) even though we know that they are flawed humans who can and do make mistakes and abuse their authority.”

This is not a battle that can be won without examining the documents and practices that establish authority. In the US it is that authority rests ultimately in the people. The system of representation – the republic – is for the people. The revolution was fought for individual liberty. Frankly, had the founders been conservative there would have been no revolution. Nothing that they fought over was unique in governance. They gad a court system, they openly spoke against the government, they had a press, they had common law, they had the protection of the military and local security, nearly all of which was paid for by the government and financed initially by the crown. So excuse me if I take exception to the suggestion that tea parties, and street riots are samples of conservative respect for authorities.

As I noted earlier, your examples, suggest that the founders were not anything but radicals in upper-class and middle class dress, status and custom. I am pressed to the extreme to render as conservative the acts of violence committed against the local authorities and claim the revolution and its founders were conservative.

For the conservative, institutions command some respect. Authority itself is not what is respected. It is the concept of ordered social polity that a conservatives seeks and respects. That is not the same thing as respecting authority figures. And that social understanding is the vestige of power by the governed for said authority to help ensure good order or orderly processes. The question is always what is meant by respect and when is disrespect warranted and what is acceptable expression(s) of disrespect.

Dr. Sowell was concerned about acts of violence as forms of expression that were unacceptable for obvious reasons. He considered the level of disrespect which Justice Thomas might have engaged as a young man. Dr. Sowell’s authority is derived from his experience, knowledge and hopefully his life. But when conservatives speak of respect for authority it is to what those authorities provide in orderly existence – not merely their “raw” power. Justice Thomas’s objections were not about white people. But raw power disconnected from its established design of order, in the case of the 1960-s and 1970’s for some populations expressions of disrespect were not about authority but raw power authority that violated the norms of good order, they claim to uphold. When conservative ethos of respect for authority rests on the concept of raw power — it’s validity is tenuous, because raw power as authority alone will trample on good order to exercise its will. And here is where conservative and liberal or progressives diverge. The liberals and conservative have invested mountains in delegitimizing the polity that conservatives embrace. Ant conservative ethos resting merely on raw power becomes subject to calls of authoritarian for authorities sake. Which is why conservatives would rather engage in discussion and debate to shore up their legitimacy.

If one’s legitimacy rests on skin color, one had better hope that said skin colors play by the rules established and agreed upon for order — because if they don’t, they sold their legitimacy down the tubes and will be forced to rely on raw power —

1. This confirms me in my opinion that Peterson is an authentically smart man.

2. He’s into “conservatism” about halfway, or so I judge. (I really don’t make much of a distinction between the American and British varieties: there’s less difference there than might appear, and they’re getting more similar over time, not less.)

3. He wants maybe half of what conservatism, so-called, can give him. He wants liberation from the academy (and who can blame him there) and he wants the regiments of laddish followers hanging on to his every word.

4. But, there are other things he doesn’t want and wouldn’t take if you paid him to accept them. Such as:

5. He doesn’t want to be part of the Anglo-American club of male conservative pundits of his own age. Probably, he wants to do good in his own way, and his conception of his own way of doing good is to rescue those he deems to be worthy of the trouble. (Which doesn’t include girls, BTW; girls can go sod themselves.) But he doesn’t want to have to interact laterally with colleagues or equals. What good is conservatism (or whatever he personally deigns to call it) to him if he still has to do that? Such a bore. He might as well have stayed in the faculty lounge. Besides,

6. He doesn’t want the entree into any club of which you guys are members. You guys touch off his academic-snob instincts — and there’s no reason those instincts can’t be valid and legitimate. At any rate, he’s listening to them. He doesn’t want to be in your same drawer; you embarrass him.

7. Did I mention that I think Peterson is a genuinely smart dude, and that I’ve just had that opinion confirmed? I suppose I did. Anyway, that’s all for now. Have a nice day.

I don’t find it difficult to believe at all. He is nothing like Roger Scruton or even someone like Pat Buchanan or Peter Brimelow. Only because the Left has become so uncompromisingly and intolerantly leftist can this mistake be made now in my view. And Matt Lewis has always sounded like a walking talking cliche of dopey movement conservatism.

Actually, our concepts of authority derive a heckova lot more from Roman Law than the Bible. It took the Catholic Church a long time and much fussing and trial and error before it was able to argue out the foundations of constitutional representation. (Includes a lot of squawking about “what to do when the Pope is a heretic”, the whole Benedictine property squabble, a bunch of monastaries, and quite a few papal decrees written by popes who had been jurists.)

Peterson said in a debate that he doesn’t aim to win but to expose truth.

I think there is a similar tact in Peterson refusing to call himself a conservative. To call himself a conservative would allow everyone to box him, his beliefs, his debates, his speeches, etc into a stereotypical box which everyone believes a conservative is and should be. This would undermine Peterson in a conversation or a debate. He would have to debate not only his argument, his beliefs, his thoughts on a subject matter but also constrain himself to do it all within a confined box of a label.

Peterson has said that he thought of running for political office. I’m pretty sure that Peterson would not run as a Canadian or British liberal. For now, I think he is content defining himself rather than allowing others to define him.

“The fact we still treat it as a sacred text and frequently use it for moral justification and political argument is ridiculous.”

I think you might want to review that historicism model again. The bible is a classic world round. Its use in the education of the founders is profound and definitive. whether they themselves believed every word is not the issue. But its influence on what it means to be a citizen has deep roots. roots in policy, roots in ethics roots in social formulation — even when twisted out of context that scripture is inherent in our psyche as citizens is undeniable.

The above would be accurate even if one wanted to relegate every verse to fanciful hogwash. Pres, philosopher and writer Jefferson found it impactful enough to write his own version.